Who here is an OathKeeper?

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I took the oath in 1966. Like Michael, I see no need to reiterate or flaunt it.

The last time I checked into this outfit, all the membership fees went to the guy who started the club. As far as I can tell, it's not incorporated - neither as a for-profit nor non-profit outfit. That alone was enough for me to steer clear. Otherwise, I might have found some way to support it if I felt it was legit.

Woody

EDIT: OK, I just checked, and it is incorporated in Nevada as a non-profit, filed on October 22, 2009. I believe the last time I checked it was well before that date.

 

[helmethead]

Mike,
Its a constitutional education organization.

Ever heard of the Heritage Foundation?
Same deal...and they have their purpose and to be honest I'm not even active in oathkeepers I just understand and support their cause.

So if you are confident in your understanding of your oath then good for you.

Now explain how people coming together and discussing their oath and educating others equates to GRANDSTANDING?

 

[Bloodshotowl]

i still don't understand the purpose of the oath takers. I took an Oath when i became an attorney "to support and defend the constitution . . . " Is this the oath they are talking about.

 

[helmethead]

i still don't understand the purpose of the oath takers. I took an Oath when i became an attorney "to support and defend the constitution . . . " Is this the oath they are talking about.

Yes, military, LEOs, public servants.

Here you go bloodshot , http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=oathkeepers

 

[poopgiggle]

This is grandstanding, but so is almost all political speech. These guys have a point: while many (probably most) police officers are great citizens, there are quite a few bad cops who either don't understand the significance/meaning of their oath or don't care. I'm not cop-bashing or anything, but I think it's self-evident that police officers are people, and as such are subject to the same human flaws as everyone else; however, they're in a position of such great social responsibility where such flaws can lead to great harm to society.

I think that reaffirming the duties and responsibilities associated with being a guardian of civilized life is a Good Thing, especially when the code (the Constitution) is abused and misunderstood as it is, even by legislators and jurists.

 

[helmethead]

I took the oath in 1966. Like Michael, I see no need to reiterate or flaunt it.
...

No comment.

 

[Michael Brown]

Mike,
Now explain how people coming together and discussing their oath and educating others equates to GRANDSTANDING?

From what I have seen of them, they are not educating anyone.

They are implying that they are the only legitimate keepers of constitutional oaths.

That, and my previous posts, would explain why this is grand-standing.

Grand-standing doesn't make them bad people; it just makes me take them less than seriously.

Michael Brown

 

[helmethead]

...
They are implying that they are the only legitimate keepers of constitutional oaths.
...
Michael Brown

getting to the heart of your opinion...

I feel the same way when I see those bumper stickers that say "I love my wife". not

 

[Glocktogo]

I've taken the oath several times and serve under it today in two different capacities. To me it shouldn't matter whether you want to join Oath Keepers or not, you're still bound by the oath you took. Five years into my current employment, my boss had us stand in front of the public on the anniversary of 9/11 and reaffirm our oath. Not a bad idea in my mind.

Most who take the oath take it seriously, but I think in all the time I've served, I've seen a few who didn't. They would be willing, if not even eager to suspend the Constitution under "emergency" circumstances for the "good" of the people. I've even heard a person who swore the same oath I did say that the government allows people to own guns and he meant it.

More so than these few among the ranks, I think it's important to reaffirm to the politically motivated "leaders" who all too often think that sworn oath means obeying their will and not that of the people comes with that oath. It does not.

One of the worst situations you could ever find yourself in would be refusing an illegal order. Regardless of the outcome, it's going to cause lasting problems. For that reason I believe it's important to do more than swear the oath upon commission and leave it at that. You have to live that oath and ensure that your leadership is aware of your loyalty to it. With that knowledge they will be less likely to test your resolve by issuing an illegal order.

Myself and others I've worked with all the way back to 1983 have from time to time worked for people who could benefit from that reminder, and we've done just that. It's far easier to put them on notice before something happens than to back them into a corner when things are at a critical state.

For that reason, I have no issue with Oath Keepers and what they stand for. If they cause just one person in power to give pause when considering the issuance of an unconstitutional order, then they've served a purpose. That's a type of grandstanding I can appreciate.

 

[Michael Brown]

One of the worst situations you could ever find yourself in would be refusing an illegal order. Regardless of the outcome, it's going to cause lasting problems.

BTDT.

And it has caused lasting problems.

Michael Brown